How do you show that a crime of statistics, like election fraud robocalls, is effective? Several ways. The Conservatives who benefited from the crime want ordinary citizens to come up with protected phone records that show victims were robocalled, play recorded examples of the crime, provide names of people who didn’t vote because they were misled, and once you fill all of those requirements, you have to prove you didn’t ever donate to a Liberal, or do a silly dance.
Besides that overly complicated way, you can look at the Conservatives’s election expenses. They prove election fraud robocalls work. How? They pay money for legitimate robocalls because they think they work to influence voters.
What do I mean a “crime of statistics”? Robocall vote suppression schemes are not intended to make EVERY recipient of a call unable or unwilling to vote, but it’s understood that an unknowable, non-zero percentage will not vote because of them. If a party is set to lose an election in a riding by less than 5% of the popular vote, and a vote suppression robocall might stop less than 5% of your opponents from voting, that might seem like a tempting crime. Especially, consider the fact that an earlier crime of this nature was not punished by Elections Canada once they thought the investigation got too hard to try.
Anyone who understands why they get spam, can understand why criminals use misleading phone calls. Some people buy in, and are taken out. It’s only the clinically dense, or hyper-partisan Conservatives who could possibly say there needs to be more “evidence” to hold by-elections where robocalls are demonstrated to have taken place.
You can have the cheap convenience of an illegitimate government tainted by election fraud, or you can punish the criminals and spend some money & time on a new, clean election. What option does a real democracy choose?
Oh, I better not answer this or the devil’s advocate Hamilton may descend upon me with threats of unwanted lawsuits from reprehensible, Conservative-backing criminals.